1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 26, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained the approval of medical care for the part of a side fluoral fluorine in the left-hand part of the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”), which was caused by the occupational accident that occurred on July 26, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff obtained the approval of the medical care for the fluoration of fluor in the upper-hand part of the fluoral part of the instant accident, for the fluoral fluoral in the fluoral part of the fluoral part of

B. ① The Plaintiff is the above A.

While receiving medical care in relation to the injury branch described in paragraph (1), if an additional application was filed against the Defendant for the approval of additional injury and disease, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to accept the said application on February 26, 2016 on the ground that there was no proximate causal link between the occurrence of the injury and the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant additional injury and disease”).

② The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition of non-approval for the instant additional injury and disease, filed a request for review with the Defendant, but was dismissed on September 22, 2016.

C. On November 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits with the Defendant on the left side of the instant accident. On November 16, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition that the Plaintiff’s disability grade constitutes class 14 [the remaining person who has a significant obstacle to the function of one pipe section (e.g., one of the three major sections of one bridge) of the three major sections of the same bridge (hereinafter referred to as “instant disability grade determination”, and the two separate dispositions were referred to as “each of the instant additional dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 8-1 to 18, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. It is clear that the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s injury was caused by this case’s accident, and it is evident that the restriction on the exercise scope of the Plaintiff’s right to the left-hand injury was caused by the instant injury.

Therefore, this is issued on different premise.